[ 0 → 4] TrapCast Express [ 4 → 15] TrapCast Express, it's Saturday, October 7th, 2023. [ 16 → 20] What a week. What a week it's been. [ 20 → 24] Every day this past week, you just didn't know what to do first. [ 25 → 28] Somehow everything was hitting at the same time. [ 28 → 35] Here are the major things that happened in the last, well, let's say, nine to ten days. [ 35 → 41] First, the Catholic Identity Conference of the Recognize and Resist crowd here in the U.S. [ 42 → 45] Then, a consistory of new cardinals in the Vatican, [ 46 → 51] followed by a pre-Synod ecumenical prayer vigil in St. Peter's Square. [ 51 → 56] The publication of Dubia on the Synod by five cardinals, [ 56 → 58] plus Francis' response, [ 58 → 64] plus follow-up Dubia Francis has refused to answer. [ 64 → 71] Then, Francis answering a set of Dubia submitted by Cardinal Duca on Amoris Laetitia. [ 72 → 75] Then, the Synodal Tower of Babel conference in Rome. [ 76 → 81] Then, the release of Bergoglio's new apostolic exhortation, Laudatideum. [ 81 → 85] Then, the opening and first few days of the Synod. [ 85 → 88] Then, let's back up a few more days, [ 88 → 92] and note that the Kazakh Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider, [ 93 → 98] I call him now the world's most significant, insignificant Novus Ordo bishop, [ 98 → 105] released a provocative prayer for the 2023 Synod on Synodality on September 28th, [ 106 → 113] and on September 19th, had published his own semi-trad catechism called Credo. [ 113 → 116] And, of course, that's now being hailed by some as the greatest thing ever. [ 117 → 118] But, anyway, I don't know. [ 118 → 119] I don't mean to get into that now. [ 119 → 127] I just wanted to mention all these major things happening in just the past few days and weeks. [ 127 → 131] And the remainder of the month of October promises to be busy, too. [ 132 → 136] Francis has threatened to release a new apostolic letter on October 15th, [ 136 → 140] and the Synod will continue until October 29th. [ 141 → 146] And, finally, there will be another Recognize and Resist conference in Rome regarding the Synod, [ 146 → 148] the Rome Life Forum, [ 148 → 153] and that will begin on October 31st and end the following day. [ 154 → 157] So, yeah, lots going on. [ 157 → 162] So, let's get started looking at some of these things a bit more in-depth. [ 162 → 164] First, the dubia. [ 165 → 167] For those who don't know what that means, [ 168 → 170] dubia is the Latin word for doubts [ 170 → 175] and refers to questions that clergy can submit to the Holy See [ 175 → 178] when there is something they want clarification on. [ 178 → 181] And that's something that was done before Vatican II as well. [ 182 → 187] For example, in 1909, the Pontifical Biblical Commission was asked [ 187 → 193] whether in Genesis chapter 1, the word day means a 24-hour period, [ 193 → 197] so that when it says that God created the world in six days, [ 197 → 200] it would mean in six 24-hour periods. [ 200 → 208] Or whether it was permissible to believe that by day is meant just an unspecified period of time. [ 208 → 214] And the Holy See responded that either understanding was permissible to hold [ 214 → 218] and that there could be free discussion about this among theologians. [ 218 → 225] And you can look that up in Denzinger, the pre-Vatican II edition, number 2128. [ 225 → 227] So, that's what dubia are. [ 228 → 231] Now, you may remember that in 2016, [ 231 → 235] when Francis published his exhortation Amoris Laetitia, [ 235 → 237] after the two synods on the family, [ 237 → 242] all hell broke loose because it appeared that he was opening the doors [ 242 → 246] to allowing unrepentant adulterers to receive Holy Communion. [ 246 → 249] Of course, he didn't say it quite like that, [ 249 → 254] but once you cut through all the smooth-sounding rhetoric and the sophistry [ 254 → 258] and read all the footnotes, that's what he was actually doing. [ 259 → 263] So, the Novus Ordo cardinals Burke, Braunmuller, Meisner, and Cafera [ 263 → 267] wrote five precise questions, dubia, [ 267 → 271] to challenge Francis to say openly and directly [ 271 → 274] whether certain points in his exhortation [ 274 → 277] were indeed saying what they appeared to be saying [ 277 → 281] and therefore contradicting the prior Catholic teaching [ 281 → 285] or whether there was some other way these points were to be understood [ 285 → 289] so that they did not contradict prior teaching. [ 290 → 292] So, Francis was pushed against the wall. [ 293 → 295] One way or another, he had to be clear. [ 295 → 297] Either Amoris Laetitia, [ 297 → 300] was now teaching something new [ 300 → 303] and in contradiction to perennial Catholic doctrine [ 303 → 307] or the document was not teaching anything new [ 307 → 309] and therefore nothing had changed [ 309 → 313] and remarried divorcees could still not receive Communion. [ 313 → 316] Well, guess what Francis did? [ 316 → 317] Nothing. [ 318 → 321] He knew that either way he'd be hosed. [ 321 → 323] So, he simply did nothing. [ 323 → 327] And when the four cardinals requested an audience with him [ 327 → 330] to talk about it, he simply refused to grant it. [ 331 → 335] And still, he has still not received them to this very day. [ 336 → 338] In fact, two of the cardinals died in 2017. [ 340 → 344] Meanwhile, people like Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, [ 344 → 347] Emma Bonino, and others have had no problem [ 347 → 352] getting an appointment to meet with Francis for an extended chat. [ 353 → 354] It's just for some perspective. [ 355 → 357] Anyway, to this day, [ 357 → 360] Francis has not answered the dubia from 2016. [ 362 → 363] Meanwhile, a few days ago, [ 363 → 366] it was revealed that more dubia had been submitted [ 366 → 368] to the Vatican just this past July. [ 369 → 373] One set consisted of 10 questions submitted [ 373 → 375] by Cardinal Dominic Duca, [ 375 → 378] the retired Archbishop of Prague, Czech Republic. [ 379 → 382] His dubia concern Amoris Laetitia, [ 382 → 386] just like the original dubia of the other cardinals in 2016. [ 386 → 389] But this time, Francis responded. [ 390 → 391] And what do you know? [ 392 → 393] He made another mess. [ 394 → 394] Of course. [ 395 → 398] Now, we don't have time here to go through [ 398 → 401] all the individual questions and Bergoglio's responses, [ 401 → 404] so let me just give you the long and the short of it. [ 405 → 408] The official Vatican response to the dubia affirms, [ 408 → 412] first, that Amoris Laetitia is an act of the papal magisterium, [ 413 → 415] to which every Catholic must submit. [ 415 → 416] Second, [ 416 → 419] that, yes, it does open the possibility of access [ 419 → 421] to confession and communion, [ 421 → 424] when, in a particular case, [ 424 → 429] there are limitations that mitigate responsibility and guilt. [ 431 → 432] Something that, of course, [ 433 → 436] is to be discerned through pastoral accompaniment, [ 437 → 442] but that ultimately belongs to the individual spouses to decide on. [ 442 → 446] Translation, Francis is essentially saying, [ 446 → 450] that living in a non-celibate, adulterous union could, [ 451 → 452] depending on the circumstances, [ 452 → 455] be only a venial sin. [ 455 → 458] Now, that's obviously complete nonsense. [ 459 → 462] The Portuguese novelist-orto-apologist Pedro Gabriel [ 462 → 466] wrote an article for Where Peter Is, back in 2019, [ 467 → 469] arguing that very thing, [ 469 → 471] the same argument that Francis made. [ 472 → 475] And we shredded it to pieces back then on our blog. [ 475 → 477] I got it linked in the show notes. [ 478 → 481] Well, with the official papal thesis [ 481 → 486] that adultery can only be a venial sin in particular circumstances, [ 486 → 491] maybe we will now see promotional flyers in Novus Ordo parishes. [ 492 → 495] Go through an accompaniment session with our merciful pastor [ 495 → 498] and see if adultery is venial for you. [ 499 → 501] You can't make this stuff up. [ 502 → 505] But wait, there's more. [ 505 → 508] Cardinal Duca's dubia weren't the only dubia [ 508 → 511] the Vatican received in July and answered. [ 511 → 515] Cardinals Burke, Braunmuller, Iniguez, Serra, and Zenn [ 515 → 518] had submitted five precise questions [ 518 → 523] regarding the work of the Synod on synodality on July 10th. [ 524 → 527] The first dubium concerns divine revelation. [ 527 → 531] The cardinals ask Francis to confirm, or perhaps deny, [ 531 → 534] that divine revelation is unchangeable [ 534 → 536] and can never be contradicted, [ 536 → 538] and that it's not subject to change [ 538 → 543] based on new scientific findings or cultural changes of the times. [ 543 → 548] The second dubium is the one that's been getting the most attention. [ 548 → 551] It's basically about finding good elements [ 551 → 556] in mortally sinful situations, such as sodomitic unions. [ 556 → 559] The cardinals want to know if the divinely constituted [ 559 → 563] natural order of male and female for marriage [ 563 → 564] is now to be determined. [ 564 → 566] It is now to be considered a mere ideal, [ 567 → 570] such that same-sex unions could also be accepted [ 570 → 572] as a possible good. [ 572 → 574] And they're asking this specifically [ 574 → 577] in the context of blessing homo couples. [ 578 → 582] The third dubium asks if synodality [ 582 → 584] can be the supreme regulative criterion [ 584 → 587] of the permanent government of the Church [ 587 → 590] without distorting her constitutive order [ 590 → 592] willed by Christ. [ 592 → 594] The fourth dubium asks if the divine order [ 594 → 595] asks Francis to confirm [ 595 → 597] that there is an essential difference [ 597 → 600] between the ministerial priesthood of the ordained [ 600 → 602] and the universal priesthood [ 602 → 605] in which all the baptized share, [ 606 → 608] and that it has been infallibly decided [ 608 → 609] by John Paul II [ 609 → 613] that women cannot be admitted to priestly ordination. [ 615 → 617] And lastly, the fifth dubium concerns [ 617 → 619] Francis' repeated insistence [ 619 → 622] that confessors are to absolve all penitents [ 622 → 624] of all their sins, [ 624 → 626] always, no matter what. [ 627 → 629] The cardinals ask Francis to confirm [ 629 → 631] that the Council of Trent's dogmatic teaching [ 631 → 633] is still valid, [ 633 → 635] which says that for absolution to be valid, [ 636 → 639] the penitent must be contrite for his sins [ 639 → 640] and have the intention [ 640 → 644] of not committing mortal sin again in the future. [ 645 → 648] Now, these five dubia, [ 648 → 650] these are all really good questions to ask. [ 651 → 652] And this time, though, [ 652 → 654] Francis responded. [ 655 → 658] But of course, as you can probably imagine, [ 659 → 662] he didn't just respond with a clear yes or no. [ 663 → 665] And of course, it's true that sometimes [ 665 → 667] a simple yes or no cannot be given [ 667 → 670] depending on how a question is framed, [ 670 → 672] what assumptions are built into the question, [ 672 → 673] and so on. [ 673 → 676] And sometimes you need to add more information [ 676 → 677] to ensure clarity. [ 678 → 681] However, what Francis did in his responses, [ 681 → 682] and by the way, [ 682 → 685] don't think for a minute that he wrote those himself. [ 685 → 688] The fact that he responded with lengthy answers [ 688 → 690] the very next day [ 690 → 692] indicates, to me at least, [ 692 → 694] that he knew these dubia were coming [ 694 → 698] or that someone else was tasked with answering them [ 698 → 699] and given all day to do it. [ 700 → 702] Perhaps Victor Manuel Fernandez, [ 702 → 703] who had just been appointed [ 703 → 705] the new head of the Dicastery [ 706 → 707] for the destruction of the faith. [ 708 → 711] Now, let's look at just one response [ 711 → 712] of Francis. [ 712 → 715] Which is also representative of the others. [ 716 → 717] In the second dubium, [ 717 → 721] the cardinals ask about marriage versus homo-unions. [ 722 → 723] If the former was now to be considered [ 723 → 725] simply the ideal, [ 726 → 727] and the latter an acceptable, [ 728 → 730] just not as good option, [ 730 → 732] in light of widespread claims [ 732 → 734] that the church could bless homo-couples [ 734 → 737] without betraying revealed doctrine. [ 738 → 740] Here is Bergoglio's lengthy reply, [ 740 → 742] a total of seven, [ 742 → 745] see how much of it you can take [ 745 → 748] before your mind starts rebelling. [ 749 → 749] Quote, [ 750 → 754] A. The church has a very clear conception of marriage, [ 755 → 758] an exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union [ 758 → 759] between a man and a woman [ 759 → 762] naturally open to the generation of children. [ 763 → 766] She calls marriage only such a union. [ 767 → 769] Other forms of union do so only [ 769 → 772] in a partial and analogous way, [ 772 → 775] which is why they cannot be called marriage [ 775 → 776] in the strict sense. [ 777 → 780] B. It is not just a matter of names, [ 780 → 782] but the reality we call marriage [ 782 → 785] has a unique, essential constitution [ 785 → 787] that requires an exclusive name [ 787 → 790] not applicable to other realities. [ 790 → 793] It is certainly much more than a mere ideal. [ 794 → 797] C. This is why the church avoids [ 797 → 800] any kind of rite or sacramental [ 800 → 802] that could contradict this conviction. [ 802 → 805] And imply that something which is not marriage [ 805 → 807] is recognized as marriage. [ 808 → 811] D. In dealing with persons, however, [ 811 → 814] we must not lose the pastoral charity [ 814 → 817] that must permeate all our decisions and attitudes. [ 818 → 820] The defense of the objective truth [ 820 → 823] is not the only expression of this charity, [ 823 → 825] which is also made of kindness, [ 826 → 828] patience, understanding, tenderness, [ 829 → 830] and encouragement. [ 830 → 831] I think he forgot encouragement. [ 832 → 836] Therefore, we cannot make ourselves [ 836 → 840] into judges who only deny, reject, exclude. [ 841 → 844] E. Pastoral prudence must therefore [ 844 → 847] properly discern whether there are forms [ 847 → 850] of blessing requested by one or more people [ 850 → 854] that do not convey a misconception of marriage. [ 855 → 857] Because when a blessing is requested, [ 857 → 860] it is a request for help from God, [ 860 → 862] a plea to be able to live better. [ 862 → 866] A trust in a father who can help us to live better. [ 867 → 869] F. On the other hand, [ 869 → 871] even if there are situations [ 871 → 873] that from an objective point of view [ 873 → 874] are not morally acceptable, [ 875 → 878] the same pastoral charity demands [ 878 → 881] that we do not treat as no more than sinners [ 881 → 884] other persons whose guilt or responsibility [ 884 → 887] can be mitigated by various factors [ 887 → 891] that influence subjective imputability. [ 891 → 892] G. [ 892 → 896] Decisions that may be part of pastoral prudence [ 896 → 898] in certain circumstances [ 898 → 901] need not be transformed into a norm. [ 902 → 903] In other words, it is not appropriate [ 903 → 906] for a diocese, a conference of bishops, [ 907 → 909] or any other ecclesial structure [ 909 → 912] to authorize constantly and officially [ 912 → 915] procedures or rules for every type of affair, [ 916 → 920] since everything that is part of a practical discernment [ 920 → 921] in particular circumstances [ 921 → 922] is not a matter of fact. [ 922 → 922] E. Pastoral prudence [ 922 → 925] cannot be elevated to the level of a rule [ 925 → 928] since this would lead to an intolerable casuistry. [ 929 → 933] Canon law should not and cannot cover everything, [ 933 → 936] nor can conferences of bishops pretend to do so [ 936 → 939] with their various documents and protocols [ 939 → 941] because the life of the church [ 941 → 945] runs through many channels besides the normative ones. [ 945 → 946] Unquote. [ 947 → 948] Are you still there? [ 949 → 949] Yeah? [ 949 → 951] So, what do you think? [ 951 → 953] What did Francis say? [ 954 → 956] I'd say there's something in there for everyone. [ 957 → 958] And so, not surprisingly, [ 959 → 961] different journalists and different commentators [ 961 → 965] have different opinions about what the Pope [ 965 → 967] actually decided here. [ 967 → 969] And so it's the usual game of [ 969 → 973] did the Pope just allow blessings for gay couples? [ 974 → 977] And what did Francis really say? [ 977 → 981] And that's exactly what the false Pope wants, of course. [ 981 → 985] Now, for those of us who have learned to read between the lines, [ 985 → 988] this is clearly Bergoglio signaling [ 988 → 991] to go ahead with blessings for same-sex couples. [ 992 → 995] At first, it may be a kind of exception, [ 995 → 1000] a toleration with lots of emphasis on individual cases [1000 → 1004] and pastoral accompaniment and personal discernment. [1005 → 1007] And then there's that caveat [1007 → 1011] that it has to be clear that it's not a marriage. [1011 → 1013] Of course, that won't last long [1013 → 1016] because, you know, discrimination and stuff [1016 → 1020] and also because they will consider it a marriage [1020 → 1024] and all distinctions will be blurred in the practical order. [1025 → 1028] The exception quickly becomes the rule in Novus Ordo land. [1030 → 1034] But what for now will be considered by Francis' apologists [1034 → 1036] as that crucial criterion [1036 → 1040] that there cannot be any misconception about it being a marriage [1040 → 1041] is that it's not a marriage. [1041 → 1042] The question is also disingenuous. [1043 → 1046] The question is not simply whether it's a marriage, [1047 → 1051] but whether the union is intrinsically evil, sinful. [1052 → 1054] And of course it is. [1054 → 1058] And for that reason alone, it cannot take place. [1058 → 1062] A homosexual union, for that reason alone, cannot be blessed. [1063 → 1065] You cannot invoke God's blessing [1065 → 1068] on something that is intrinsically evil. [1069 → 1070] As a friend of mine noted, [1071 → 1074] it would be like saying that a priest can bless an abortion center [1074 → 1078] as long as he makes clear that it's not a pediatric clinic. [1079 → 1083] Ultimately, Francis' message to each individual cleric is, [1083 → 1087] you decide if you want to bless gay unions. [1087 → 1091] I certainly will not interfere if you do. [1092 → 1095] Unlike saying mass using the 1962 missile, by the way. [1096 → 1098] That's something they need to get Vatican permission for. [1100 → 1100] The Constitution, [1100 → 1103] the consequences of this will be catastrophic. [1104 → 1107] Not only will it unleash chaos in dioceses, [1107 → 1110] where one parish blesses and another condemns, [1111 → 1114] it will also put conservative Novus Ordo priests on the spot, [1115 → 1118] where denying such a blessing could lead to lawsuits [1118 → 1122] and persecution by authorities for so-called hate crimes. [1123 → 1126] Anyway, what Francis did in his responses to the Dubia [1126 → 1129] is use the typical modernist strategy. [1129 → 1133] Instead of giving answers that are clear and succinct, [1134 → 1136] he offered a lot of words. [1136 → 1139] Words that do not clarify, but obscure. [1140 → 1143] When you read what he wrote, your brain turns to mush. [1144 → 1147] After reading two or three paragraphs, you get the message. [1148 → 1150] And the message is, whatever. [1151 → 1153] His answers include everything. [1154 → 1158] Yes, no, maybe, it depends, you decide. [1159 → 1164] And that's exactly what some astute observers have concluded as well. [1164 → 1168] Luisela Scorsari, for example, writes at the Daily Compass, [1168 → 1170] Yes, yes, or perhaps not. [1171 → 1174] Francis raises more doubts than the Dubia. [1175 → 1176] And that's exactly right. [1176 → 1178] By pretending to respond to one doubt, [1179 → 1182] Francis, with his answer, raises three or four more. [1182 → 1186] And then he complains when the cardinals issue follow-up questions, [1186 → 1188] which is exactly what they did. [1188 → 1189] On August 21st, [1189 → 1194] Cardinals Burke, Braunmuller, Iniguez, Serra, and Zenn [1194 → 1196] submitted their five Dubia again, [1196 → 1201] this time reformulated in light of Bergoglio's obfuscating answers. [1201 → 1203] And to those reformulated Dubia, [1204 → 1206] Francis, of course, did not respond. [1206 → 1210] Which is why the five Novels Ordo Cardinals now made them public. [1212 → 1217] Now, Cardinal Fernandez, Bergoglio's new doctrinal undertaker, [1217 → 1219] complained about the five cardinals' submission, [1219 → 1221] of the reformulated Dubia, [1222 → 1226] saying that Francis isn't their slave for errands. [1226 → 1229] But that is not quite true. [1229 → 1234] See, if Francis were what he claims to be, a true pope, [1234 → 1238] then teaching, defending, and clarifying true doctrine [1238 → 1241] would be his very first duty. [1242 → 1245] Unlike, you know, making video messages about food waste [1245 → 1249] or chatting with Bill Clinton about the weather in 2050. [1249 → 1253] Or writing the umpteenth forward to somebody else's book. [1255 → 1258] All right, let's talk about the synod for a moment. [1258 → 1263] You know, the synod on synodality that began on October 4th. [1263 → 1265] The big conference in the Vatican [1265 → 1269] where they're all walking together and listening and discerning [1269 → 1271] like there's no tomorrow. [1271 → 1273] Yep, that one. [1273 → 1278] Vatican reporter Joshua McElwee spoke to Cardinal Pietro Parolin, [1278 → 1279] the Secretary-Elect, [1279 → 1280] the Secretary of State, [1281 → 1283] and he said that the synod is going well [1283 → 1287] and that the Holy Spirit is breathing. [1288 → 1291] Yes, he actually said that. [1292 → 1295] Now, Vatican journalist Diane Montagna [1295 → 1297] had a really good question about that. [1298 → 1301] On Friday, October 6th, at the official press briefing, [1301 → 1306] which, by the way, is the only official and approved source of information [1306 → 1308] regarding the synod, [1308 → 1309] while the assembly is still in session, [1309 → 1312] Montagna asked this. [1313 → 1316] A fundamental question about the synod. [1317 → 1321] Repeatedly, synod officials, including yourself, [1321 → 1327] have talked about the Holy Spirit as the protagonist of the synod. [1327 → 1330] Over and over again, we hear about the Holy Spirit. [1331 → 1335] Traditionally, well, not just traditionally, [1335 → 1337] the Catholic Church discerns the Holy Spirit [1337 → 1339] with a perspective, [1339 → 1341] by knowing, by determining, [1341 → 1344] if something is in accord with divine revelation, [1345 → 1347] the unanimous consensus of the Fathers, [1348 → 1350] and apostolic tradition. [1350 → 1353] How is this assembly discerning [1353 → 1356] whether something comes from the Holy Spirit [1356 → 1357] or from another spirit? [1358 → 1360] The spokesman was Dr. Paolo Ruffini, [1360 → 1364] the Prefect of the Vatican Dicastery for Communication. [1365 → 1367] In other words, the top dog [1367 → 1368] when it comes to the press, [1368 → 1368] and the Catholic Church. [1368 → 1374] And he answered in Italian, [1374 → 1376] so there's no point in playing his answer [1376 → 1378] on an English-language podcast, [1379 → 1382] but I will quote the English translation of his answer [1382 → 1384] that Montagna provided on Twitter. [1385 → 1387] Here is how Ruffini answered. [1388 → 1388] Quote, [1388 → 1392] I can respond by citing the creed which you know. [1393 → 1395] I believe in the Holy Spirit. [1396 → 1398] For the rest, it is the people of God [1398 → 1400] on a journey that is meeting to pray [1400 → 1402] and converse together. [1403 → 1405] In history, as in prior history, [1405 → 1408] moments happen when the people of God [1408 → 1411] gather, pray, God with them, [1411 → 1413] and the Holy Spirit acts. [1414 → 1414] Unquote. [1415 → 1418] Now, Montagna attempted to ask a follow-up question, [1419 → 1422] but the microphone had already been snatched away from her, [1422 → 1425] and so she just used her natural voice to ask, [1426 → 1428] but how do we know that it's, [1428 → 1429] the Holy Spirit? [1430 → 1431] But by that point, [1432 → 1434] the vice director of the Holy See press office, [1435 → 1435] Christiane Murray, [1436 → 1438] was already jumping in, saying, [1438 → 1440] thank you, thank you, Dr. Ruffini, [1440 → 1441] are there other questions? [1442 → 1442] No? [1442 → 1445] Then tomorrow there's another meeting here. [1446 → 1448] So, kudos to Diane Montagna. [1448 → 1451] That was a really great and courageous question to ask, [1451 → 1454] and of course, these people can't answer that, [1454 → 1458] because the whole Senate is just a bunch of bloviating, [1458 → 1460] garbage, and in the end, [1460 → 1462] they will come up with whatever they want, [1462 → 1464] or whatever Francis wants, [1464 → 1465] and say it was the Holy Spirit. [1466 → 1468] I mean, let's not kid ourselves, okay? [1468 → 1468] That's all this is. [1469 → 1471] And I'm glad that one journalist [1471 → 1474] has now helped to make that more obvious. [1476 → 1478] All right, so the Senate on Synodality [1478 → 1481] began with an opening mass in St. Peter's Square, [1481 → 1483] presided over by Francis, [1483 → 1486] and although he didn't actually celebrate himself, [1487 → 1488] he did give. [1488 → 1489] The sermon, as usual. [1490 → 1492] Yeah, that mouth has its own engine, really. [1493 → 1497] And he began his sermon with not just a lie, [1497 → 1499] but with a blasphemous one. [1499 → 1501] In his second sentence, [1502 → 1504] where he claimed that, quote, [1504 → 1510] John the Baptist doubts that Jesus is really the Messiah, unquote. [1511 → 1511] Blasphemy. [1512 → 1513] It's a lie. [1513 → 1515] St. John the Baptist never doubted [1515 → 1517] that Christ was the Messiah, [1517 → 1520] He was not, after all, [1520 → 1522] a reed shaken by the wind, [1522 → 1525] as our Lord himself had emphasized. [1526 → 1529] Now, this blasphemous lie is not new for Francis. [1529 → 1533] He had told it a few times before in the last 10 years, [1533 → 1536] and we've put together several posts over the years [1536 → 1538] refuting this nonsense in depth. [1539 → 1541] And I'm going to post the most recent one [1541 → 1542] in the show notes for you. [1543 → 1546] The gospel passage that Francis claims [1546 → 1547] tells us of the Baptist, [1547 → 1552] is Matthew 11, verses 2 through 5, [1553 → 1554] which reads, quote, [1555 → 1557] Now when John had heard in prison [1557 → 1558] the works of Christ, [1559 → 1560] sending two of his disciples, [1560 → 1561] he said to him, [1562 → 1564] Aren't thou he that art to come, [1564 → 1566] or look we for another? [1566 → 1569] And Jesus, making answer, said to them, [1569 → 1572] Go and relate to John what you have heard and seen. [1573 → 1575] The blind see, the lame walk, [1575 → 1577] the lepers are cleansed, [1577 → 1577] the deaf hear, [1577 → 1579] the dead rise again, [1580 → 1582] the poor have the gospel preached to them. [1583 → 1583] Unquote. [1584 → 1587] At first sight, sure, [1587 → 1589] it sounds like St. John is doubting. [1589 → 1592] But that's only at first sight, [1592 → 1595] and once you consult approved pre-Vatican II [1595 → 1597] Catholic scripture commentaries, [1597 → 1599] writings of the church fathers, and so on, [1600 → 1602] you will understand very quickly [1602 → 1604] that the true understanding of this passage [1604 → 1607] is that the Baptist was sending his disciples [1607 → 1610] to our Lord to inquire about his messiahship, [1610 → 1612] not because he doubted it, [1613 → 1615] but because they did. [1616 → 1617] Now Francis knows this. [1618 → 1620] There's no way he doesn't know. [1620 → 1622] He's had a Jesuit education. [1623 → 1624] And say what you will about that, [1624 → 1625] it is intense. [1626 → 1628] I mean, it's not difficult to look that up. [1630 → 1633] Besides, even if he truly didn't know, [1634 → 1635] well, it was his job to know. [1636 → 1637] It's his responsibility [1637 → 1640] more than any other persons on earth, [1640 → 1643] if he really is what he claims to be, [1643 → 1647] to look up how the church understands this passage [1647 → 1651] before teaching the whole world about it, right? [1651 → 1654] Especially before blasting St. John [1654 → 1655] for doubting our Lord. [1656 → 1657] For heaven's sake, [1657 → 1661] St. John the Baptist recognized the true Messiah [1661 → 1665] when he and the Messiah were both still in the womb. [1666 → 1667] And when our Lord said, [1667 → 1670] the Lord came to be baptized by him as an adult, [1670 → 1674] he witnessed the Holy Ghost descend upon him as a dove, [1674 → 1675] and he testified, [1676 → 1678] behold the Lamb of God, [1678 → 1681] even though he had never met him. [1682 → 1685] So Francis began the synod on synodality [1685 → 1688] with a mendacious blasphemy. [1689 → 1692] If that isn't a sign of what to expect [1692 → 1696] for the remainder of the synodal journey. [1696 → 1700] Tradcast Express is a production of Novus Ordo Watch. [1700 → 1702] Check us out at tradcast.org [1702 → 1704] and if you like what we're doing, [1704 → 1707] please consider making a tax-deductible contribution [1707 → 1710] at novusortowatch.org [1710 → 1711] slash donate.